ReviewJournal of molecular cell biology2021
Toward precise CRISPR DNA fragment editing and predictable 3D genome engineering.
Review in Journal of molecular cell biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bacterial 3D genome architecture: organization, regulation, and synthetic biology applications.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Multiplex CRISPR-Cas Genome Editing: Next-Generation Microbial Strain Engineering.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2024Review
- AraC transcriptional regulator, aspartate semialdehyde dehydrogenase and acyltransferase: Three putative genes in phenol catabolic pathway of Acinetobacter sp. Strain DF4.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2024Article
- DNA polymerases in precise and predictable CRISPR/Cas9-mediated chromosomal rearrangements.BMC biology · 2023Article
- Large-scale data-driven and physics-based models offer insights into the relationships among the structures, dynamics, and functions of chromosomes.Journal of molecular cell biology · 2023Review
- Multiplex Editing of theThe CRISPR journal · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ever since gene targeting or specific modification of genome sequences in mice was achieved in the early 1980s, the reverse genetic approach of precise editing of any genomic locus has greatly accelerated biomedical research and biotechnology development. In particular, the recent development of the CRISPR/Cas9 system has greatly expedited genetic dissection of 3D genomes. CRISPR gene-editing outcomes result from targeted genome cleavage by ectopic bacterial Cas9 nuclease followed by presumed random ligations via the host double-strand break repair machineries. Recent studies revealed, however, that the CRISPR genome-editing system is precise and predictable because of cohesive Cas9 cleavage of targeting DNA. Here, we synthesize the current understanding of CRISPR DNA fragment-editing mechanisms and recent progress in predictable outcomes from precise genetic engineering of 3D genomes. Specifically, we first briefly describe historical genetic studies leading to CRISPR and 3D genome engineering. We then summarize different types of chromosomal rearrangements by DNA fragment editing. Finally, we review significant progress from precise 1D gene editing toward predictable 3D genome engineering and synthetic biology. The exciting and rapid advances in this emerging field provide new opportunities and challenges to understand or digest 3D genomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.